Total Pageviews

Monday, 30 November 2015

Seriously, buying old books that are referenced as containing pre-1960s Entity-CE IIIK cases can be a financial drain!

Just got some 1972 editions of the UK mag Gemini and Portraits Of Aliens by Nigel Watson and am awaiting a few books but the biggest addition, though sadly it is digital not print, is the entire British UFO Research Association digital archive going back to 1959.

Lucky since a good few of my original copies were..."purloined" in the 1970s.

Why, why, why will no one take Ufology seriously? Simply because Ufologists make such a mess.

Not only do the Ufologists argue amongst themselves ("well, I never investigated that case so I won't accept it!") but the information they post and publish can be a mess. I have mentioned in other posts a case from 1930 that is quoted and cited repeatedly by people claiming to be credible UFO researchers with many years experience. They will either give a reference of "Rogerson's IntCat"/"Magonia IntCat" or "Jerome Clark -UFO Encyclopaedia" However, not one of them has cited the original source.

When I began working with the late Franklyn A. Davin-Wilson in the 1970s he impressed a point into my brain that has stuck ever since and it is the basic rule of serious research. Brinsley Le Poer Trench give "A" as a reference. You check "A" to see whether it is the original source. If "A" is not the original source then find that original source. So, when you summarise the case you include as many references to that case as you can including the actual source.

Charles Fort (in whose name "Forteans" title themselves but it needs to be pointed out that he did not want this -it was done after his death) was born in 1874 and died in 1932. So a lot of what he thought were mysteries or challenging scientific orthodoxy are things we know about today -whether asteroids or natural phenomena. I love his books -I have a 1942 first printing of The Complete Works Of Charles Fort. However, the man had many thousands of notes and I can tell you, unless you put those notes in order things can go badly wrong.

The "mystery" canids who ran amock in Cavan, Ireland, in the 1870s. Livestock killed, people attacked went insane. My thought? Rabies -it was not that uncommon in mainland Britain in the 19th century. So, I took all of Fort's references. Nothing. I searched newspaper archives. I resorted to asking Dublin Central Library and their archivist checked -nothing in newspapers on the date given, day before or after. So, the "asylum" where some of these "mad folk" were taken. Had quite a dialogue with the hospital archivist and historian -nothing in the records that he could find after a search.

But Fort gave the newspaper titles as well as dates and locations. Fort was either having a laugh and realised no one would check -perhaps proving a point he was making?- or had completely screwed up his references. It's all detailed in my Canids book.

Also, because I went to the original sources and trawled through archives rather than just copy what someone else had written not only did I prove beyond doubt that the "Girt Dog of Ennerdale" was not what Forteans and "cryptozoologists" claim -either a Tasmanian wolf (Thylacine), tiger or a "cryptid" but a very large dog. I also dug out details on the coyotes of Epping Forest -including an illustration of one that was captured. I dug up photographs of the mystery sheep killer of Badminton and much more and I fully referenced everything so other researchers can check. If you have a vested interest in selling books or polishing your ego my declaring things a mystery or, ridiculously, a "cryptid" then you like to keep the lies going. And people accept them as fact.

Now, I have done similar with accounts of unknown sea creatures and even the paranormal, hoping that if I dig deep enough I would find facts that could not be explained away and have solid data to go on. But no. It has taken me 30-45 years in some cases to track down facts and present a case and offer an explanation. I hated this but I then realised that only by sorting through the lies and false data would I get facts -through knowledge the truth.

I guess that's why I am not popular with "cryptozoologists", "paranormalists" and their ilk. If they want to believe utter rubbish to make their lives brighter then let them but I'll not humour them.

The same applies to Ufology. P.C. Alan Godfrey was allegedly abducted by aliens at Todmorden, Yorkshire, 1980. Hypnosis was used but even he says he is not that convinced by what came out under hypnosis -is it true, imagination? He has no idea. When you have 'investigators' who just have percipients hypnotised and the sessions video taped and collect those tapes, releasing no full case notes then you immediately have to give those reports a very low credibility rating. If you really want to have a collection go for porcelain pigs because what you are doing is contributing nothing that serious scientists or researchers can study.

"One of the
most unique accounts of alien abduction comes to us from the Ilkley Moor
in
Yorkshire, England. The witness and subject of this case is a former
policeman named Philip Spencer. Spencer claims that in the early morning
of December 1, 1987, he was taken aboard an unidentified flying craft,
and after his release managed to snap a picture of one of the alien
beings.

The Ilkley Moor is very much as you would picture it. Reminiscent of the
setting of the moors of Baskerville Hall in Conan Doyle's "Hound of the
Baskervilles," it is an eerie place. It has been said that "The Ilkley
Moor can scare you to death during daylight, and at night it's even
worse."

It is a place of mystery. There is the Swastika stone;
boulders etched with strange markings; the Badger Stone; and the Twelve
Apostles stone circle.

Many times the only living creatures on the moor are the sheep. Ilkley
has other legends too, like the hovering lights at night, which bring
occasional reports of UFOs. There are strange, swirling lights that are
filtered through the fog and seem to have a mind of their own. Possibly
some of the mysterious sights can be attributed to the not too distant
Menwith Hill Military Base, or the nearby Leeds Bradford Airport.
The activities of these two facilities will not, however, explain what
happened to Spencer. There were also stories of strange creatures that
roam across the moor at times.

After four years of being a policeman in another city, Spencer had moved
his wife and child to the Yorkshire area to be closer to her family. He
was walking across
the moor on this December morning heading for his father-in-law's house
and on the way was hoping to get some photographs of the strange light
tricks of the moor. To be able to get the images he desired he was using
a high ASA rated film to compensate for the poor light in the area.

Unfortunately,
the picture that he took was somewhat blurred, but there is no doubt
that the creature in the photo is a one of a kind being which basically
resembled the small grays.

Along with his camera, Spencer also took a compass to navigate through
the fog before sufficient daylight shone through the moor. As he was
searching for some photo angles, suddenly he caught the sight of a
strange looking being in the slopes ahead of him. He aimed and snapped a
picture of the creature which seemed to be gesturing for him to stay
away.

It then ran away. Spencer gathered his wits and took off in
pursuit of the being. Today he says he doesn't know why. It was just an
impulse reaction. He arrived just in time to get a glimpse of a flying
craft with a domed top rise up from the moor and disappear into the sky.
Atop the dome was a whitish square. He was not able to get a photograph
of the object.

There was silence now. When he saw nothing else of the being or its
craft, he began to walk to the nearest village. This walk took about 30
minutes, and during this time, a couple of thingsf things became apparent to
him. First of all, his compass now pointed south instead of north, and
secondly, the village clock showed the time an hour ahead of his... Spencer was confused now. Did he see what he thought he saw?

To
answer this burning question, he headed by bus to the nearest town with
instant film development. Sure enough, he had a picture of the
creature! It looked to be about 4 foot tall, and had a blue-green tint
to its skin. He knew he had something of importance, or at least, he
thought he did. He found the proper channels to contact UFO investigator
Peter Hough.

Hough knew what he was hearing was a "too good to be true" case, and it
worried him, but after meeting Spencer, he was convinced that he was a
man of integrity and was not seeking fame or fortune for his picture.
There was no reason to not believe what Spencer had told him. Hough
began a thorough investigation. The film with the alien picture would be
the first thing to undergo professional scrutiny.

The alien picture was first looked at by a wildlife photography expert.
The object in the image was not an animal of any known kind. It could
not be determined either way if the figure was animate or static. A
reconstruction of the original site did establish the alien's height at
or near 4 and one half feet.

The photograph was next sent to
Kodak laboratories in Hemel, Hempstead. An analysis showed that the
object was indeed part of the original photo, and not superimposed. This
conclusion did not, of course, determine what the creature was.

Next, the picture was sent to the United States for computer enhancement
and analysis. Dr. Bruce Maccabee, optical physicist with the United
States Navy rendered his expert opinion;
He stated that the slow film speed used for the low light conditions
made the film too grainy for proper testing. "I had great hopes that
this case would prove definitive. Sadly circumstances prevent it from
being so," Maccabee stated.

Something strange was noticed in the picture. Appearing on the hill at
exactly the spot where Spencer says the UFO was is a white square. Could
it be that he had gotten a part of the UFO in the shot unknowingly? He
was not sure."But trying to find out whether there was a transcript of the hypnosis session looking at the one missing hour threw up all sorts of junk.Where was the second photo showing the sqyare UFO? No one knows. No one answers emails it seems. In fact, some sites state no second photo was taken. If you look at the "I'm a Skeptic -Pay Attention To Me!" pages you usually find they resort to insults or bad language which puts them in the same category as the "pro-UFO" people. One skeptic mentioned that this photo meant that P.C. Alan Godfrey's abduction case was now shaky since he claimed to accidentally bump into a UFO and entity on the moor.Yes, it was another "WTF?" moment. What? How? When? Who the hell said this???Well, it appears that Ufologists, particularly in the United States, do not understand Police Forces in the UK. It is not one force covering "the quaint little country" but many regional police forces and rules and regulations can vary between each. So, it seems some read "Police Constable Alan Godfrey, Yorkshire" and then "a former policeman named Philip Spencer. Yorkshire" and there it was. The pseudonym (as the percipient was hoping to join the local force having moved from another area so wanted no Godfrey type press!) "Philip Spencer" was "so" similar to "Alan Godfrey" (real name) that it must be Godfrey who took the photo.

At times it gets so frustrating. I found UFO discussion forums that I normally try avoiding, referring to Alan Godfrey taking the photo. One person asked "Why are we suddenly talking about Alan Godfrey and the Ilkley photo?" No responses. So, folks, Alan Godfrey did not take the photo.

Personally, even without seeing all the cropped/enhanced/"images based on" guff had my doubts. I still do. To just write "I spoke to this guy. He seems nice. He's got a very poor quality photo but he's an ex-policeman so it seems genuine" is like Desmond Leslie saying "George Adamski is a nice guy. Genuine. These are crap photos but he was in space, you know. He is genuine"...you get the point?

Without full transcripts or access to percipients Godfrey and Spencer are both given low ratings -Godfrey isn't sure about what came out under hypnosis even!

I will not refer to David Haisell and the Gerry Armstrong case (though it does point to "how to do everything wrong" if you are interested). But if our main bulk of data on UFO abductions in the UK is to be based upon a few scraps a writer has seen on a video tape or from a session sat in on then it means UK research and investigation is no such thing. An 'investigator' who plies their trade and makes a living from writing and selling books is going for the "money-maker" and stuff the facts. This is not how it works in serious research and investigation.

The middle class, middle aged 'schoolboys' who like to claim notoriety from saying "its all rubbish" because they ignore any real work that involves them moving from their comfie chairs are simply asses who think dropping in the odd insult or name call will make them appear "hardcore" -these people and their sites and a waste of time. If they find all of this a huge laugh and ridiculous why spend so much time contributing nothing? If you have a web page and you are a "skeptic" but ignore any data that challenges your explanation then you are as bad who believes "in AD 9 a giant red mother ship was seen over Italy and released many scout craft" is fact. Read the account in the original text where the word used is "burning shield" (in other words meteorite).

In one morning in 1980 I was double checking accounts Desmond Leslie gave in The Flying Saucers Have Landed and within two hours threw it onto the floor with a note taped to the cover (I think the note is still there) which had written on it: "Never EVER even think about using this as a reference source!" You see, cases clearly reported as meteorites and other natural phenomena were being re-worded so that "a fiery spear cut through the sky" became "a mother-ship". And those Leslie quotes are still being cited by "Ufologists" over thirty years on.

And then we have the "gods" of Ufology. Jacques Vallee I once held as the Ufologist whose example should be followed. But just basic checking of his books - Challenge To Science, UFOs In Space: Anatomy of A Phenomenon and Passport To Magonia- showed that the theories and speculation were founded on totally erroneous data. Even sources that were suspect when Vallee wrote the books were cited. What seemed to be more like a natural light phenomena were mixed in as were reports of seemingly solid craft (flying saucers) which meant that, of course, you could not find a solution or the truth to "UFOs" or "flying Saucers".

Sugar. Paper. Cabbage. Come up with a theory that makes sense.

All of Vallee's work seems to be based on a mix of nonsense but he is Jacques Vallee so Ufologists do not question his work. He wrote it. It's a fact. It does not meanthat there are no interesting cases cited in his books but the actual sources for each need to be checked. Vallee's work has spawned a whole heap of work by others who just jumble up faery stories and folklore and UFO accounts (some not even 50% accurate) and shout "Vallee was right!"

And then we have "Ultra-Terrestrials" and cosmic jokers thanks to John Keel. Yeah, I would put my life on the line based on his information. You realise I'm being sarcastic? Keel was a journalist and writer who found out very early on just what sells. It was how he made his living. Again, love his books because they are like a big adventure story but, as I found, not all the things he wrote about were 100% accurate in detail. Misquotes was a good one or, again, using sources that were known to be disreputable as factual.

One idea that the British Army, during World War II, set up a UFO investigation was utterly ridiculous. Firstly, as Air Vice Marshal Sir Victor Goddard pointed out to me, and also in print, he was in charge of RAF Intelligence and the RAF would have been the body to carry out such an investigation. It did not beyond the usual questioning of pilots who saw "foo-fighters". But the biggest argument against a UFO study taking personnel and money was the War. I spoke to Sir Victor and later others who had high rank during the Second World War and they all said the same thing and I paraphrase here: "At that time we were expexting an all-out German invasion. We knew that we could not expect to survive when that happened. To suggest that at that time we were going to launch a full investigation into someone seeing a light is ridiculous"

Ancient Astronauts. Oh don't get me started. I would never say that extra-terrestrials had never visited Earth in the past but, really, stating like lobotomised fools that every one of Humankinds achievements were down to aliens is insulting to peoples of the past and present. And, despite churning out these images of "ancient alien visitors" what else are "Ancient Astronaut Theorists" (?!) doing? They are looking for any image they can interpret as "Grey Aliens".

If a Fool leads a Fool you can bet that eventually there will be a whole gang of fools bumping into walls. Hard evidence? None. Star Child Hoax is just that -it's in my last book, you know.

And we have this argument that you must declare which UFO origin theory you support. Now, that means if you go into reports you will only look at cases or 'evidence' that supports your theory. This is not scientific in any way. It is a hobbyist outlook.

You can say "I've always thought the Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis was solid" and you can go and select the cases you want. You may make a good case but the evidence has to come from double and triple checked and reliable sources. "John Keel wrote that this case---" Get out, now!

A popular expression amongst Ufologists at the moment is to accuse someone of "attempting to re-invent the UFO wheel" which means that if you have found data bases to be very untrustworthy and want to cooperate with other researchers in building up a more accurate data base, free to all to use as they will, you are "trying to re-invent the UFO wheel". It is very insulting to say the least and I think that is how it is intended to be taken.

You see, if you point out that a data base has flaws in case details, non-existent reference or poor reference sources and a mix of cases from various subjects thaty makes a totally incredibly bad data base and the response is "So what?" You have to wonder how credible those "researchers" are.

When you say fully co-operate and exchange data so everyone has the same data base that each can add to or point out known explanations to referenced cases. It is simple. It is how scientists and researchers co-operate in a study. When some of those researchers state it is not important to have the original source of a case "because blah-blah" didn't need to givev that type of information well....

Yarmouth, June 22, 1957. Three 7 feet tall creatures resembling bananas exiyed from a dome flying saucer and spoke unintelligibly to a farmer before re-entering the flying saucer and departing. Source: private.

Was that true? Who reported it? Has the account been published and if so when, by whom in what publication? Well, hey, this is me so it's a fact, Okay? AND there is a photo (slightly enhanced)

I have been investigating and studying UFO reports and entity-CE IIIK cases since 1974. It took less than a day when I was compiling case data for the AOP UFO study to realise several phenomena were mixed into the bag and so I seperated the reports then, establishing A, B and C.

I went to look for data supporting A -found it.

For B -found plenty.

For C -the misidentifications, hoaxes, false reporting by UFO writers -a great deal of data. Any serious researcher should be able to do that. But in 1983 I was told by the "darling of UK Ufology" "I know this"....but damn if the darling did not carry on ignoring the facts "known". With others I was "too nuts and bolts".

Am I pro-ETH? Am I pro "UFOs of the mind"? Am I pro-cosmic joker or the "Magonia connection"? No. I have ideas and theories but I do not taint the work I do by going and looking for reports to back up my theory. I assess all reports without bias and to try to draw me out and say I support "this" or "that" shows researchers are not being serious.

When I get to the point that I think I have enough data to support a theory then I will publish that theory with fully referenced case sources. In 2016 I am hoping that my work on a theory pertaining to the current abduction nphenomenon will be ready to publish. When it is I expect to be one of the most hated people around.

But if you are a Ufologist, a cryptozoologist, paranormalist or any other kind of "ist" and you are serious then you check every reference source even if it means hours trawling through newspaper archives or musty old books. A report that has not been checked out is a report that should never be used.

"UFO investigator David A. Haisell spent over a year investigating and
recording one Ontario family’s bizarre experiences with UFO related
phenomena which started with a seven hour period during which a young
boy mysteriously went missing during a school trip in England. This book
details the events which plagued the family spanning over twenty-five
years and two continents, culminating with two regressive hypnosis
sessions which revealed that the boy was actually the victim of a UFO
abduction during those seven hours. The chilling account of what
happened to him, and the subsequent experiences of his family upon
immigrating to Canada, join the many other unexplained Canadian UFO
events related in this book."

Now, I purchased and read The Missing Seven Hours back in...1978. I thought it was a good book. Not sure I want to get it from the shelf and read again, though. Especially after this book which is a Missing Seven Hours part 2.

My first note, posted to the front of the book after reading half-way through it, reads: "Here is Ufology's problem: mixing in sightings of natural phenomena and psychological problems with reference to the Betty and Barney Hill case - http://terryhooper.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/captured-betty-and-barney-hill-ufo.html - and that of Patrolman Schirmer and coming up with a blend of totally unexplainable phenomena".

Hopefully, if I ever get round to re-typing the hefty 1980s UFO Report the definitions will make clear what the problems are. However, back to this book.

Absolutely everything depends on one incident in 1953 when schoolboy 'Gerry Armstrong' allegedly lost seven hours on a very hot Summer's day while on a school camp trip. We are to believe that a cigarette the percipient lit before the seven hours went missing was still lit when he was found. Gerry explains this by shrugging. But this was said not to have been recalled until he and his wife sighted a "UFO" in London in 1963. Ten years later.

However, in 1959, he and his wife had decided to drive from London to Ramsgate in Kent. It is odd that they left just after midnight, intending to have breakfast in Ramsgate but stopped off near Ramsgate for a nap. Now, in 1980s traffic, towing a caravan by mistake through Central London, we still arrived in Ramsgate within two hours and traffic was far worse in the 1980s than 1959 -just check the statistics. So that makes no sense -leave at 0500hrs to beat anty rush but midnight? But at one point the couple woke to see a huge orange-red fireball in a field that they thought was a fire...then fell asleep, waking to find it day time. No sign of a fire.

I ought to point out that, if they were sleeping before getting to Ramsgate it would have been easier to sleep at home, get up early and drive direct to the town. But people do odd things. The light? Two sleepy people, they may have seen lampers (poachers or shooters out to shoot rabbits and foxes -they use 1 million candle power lights), or a farmer working late in a field -farmers still do this but it was more frequent up to the late 1980s (farmers lights on hills, and lampers, sparking a few UFO reports!).

In 1967, a UFO "wave" year (or "flap" if you prefer) with record numbers of sightings in the UK (if you have Contact (UK) UFO Register volume 1 you can check out the statistics). Gerry had plans to emigrate to Australia and there was a lot of stress. A heart murmur was found and Australia declined the application. So, Canada was where they were going to move to. Gerry had worries about selling his business so added stress. A couple then purchased it but, instead of driving home, Gerry drove to Kent in a daze and walked into a muddy field in his business suit and sat down -then seeing UFOs.

Firstly, one thing Gerry and his wife Susan are good at is not giving exact dates. Gerry recalls which friend looked shocked when he found a newspaper confirming UFO sightings but not the date or newspaper. Based on the fact that the "UFOs" were seen across Europe I suspect it was one of the meteor events that year. And the heart murmur that vanished after they decided to go to Canada (obviously the choice they were "guided" to make)? Right, check the news -people diagnosed with all types of things or not diagnosed. It happens and equipment in the 1960s is not as good as in 2015!

The move to Canada saw the Armstrongs and their two young daughters, encounter various light phenomena -and a lot seen by other witnesses that seem to be natural phenomena but the witness habit of seeing patches of light as "windows" means Haisell can leap straight in and suggest "intelligences" -and intelligences that like showing off or almost joking in what they (the objects) do. There are a lot of psychological things going on and the assumptions made are....odd...if not over the top.

But Gerry seems to adopt the attitude of knowing it all but not telling which seems to be a character trait and may be part of the overall problem. He "knows" it is all ETs. He tells everyone including secondary witnesses to claimed UFO events but never gets their name just the type of car they drove (maybe he should have gotten the licence plate number?) His wife, at times, appears on the verge of hysterics. The story by one of the daughters (11 years old) of a dream where she was entering a UFO then exiting it -Haisell questions this and asks how this would happen in a dream?

Uh, because it IS a dream? I had a dream that I was at school in St. Werburghs, Bristol, but leaving I walked around the corner and was approaching the farm where my family lived in the 1960s -in Germany. A dream is not an actual, physical, nuts and bolts reality -it exists within the mind.

Discrepancies in the other daughter's account were "probably" attempts to fill in details. Which is a discrepancy. What else was she adding?

And in 1970s Canada no 11 year old kid would have heard of UFOs or aliens. Really. There is no doubt that the kids were aware of the UFO talk in the house. Gerry described himself as having been a Ufologist for 15 years -1973- so in 1959 he knew about UFOS -he even relates how unhappy he was with the two BUFORA investigators who came about the couples 1963 sighting because he thought they had no real idea. He was not a UFO innocent and neither was his wife and I doubt that by 1973 his two daughters were -one, Pamela, even went with him when an object landed but they eventually had to return to Susan and the other daughter in the car.

Gerry also read a lot of books including on UFOs. Of course, his daughters would never have seen those, right?

There are stories of seances, healings, dopplegangers and much, much more and all the witnesses....oh, just Gerry and Susan since it does not appear Haisell even tried to contact those involved in the alleged incidents. By this time I was getting very angry. A phantom jogger -"joggy"- whom only Gerry and Susan saw. Walking past a rather odd beggar going to and coming from a store was highlighted as another weird event. In fact, when the couple got home they decided to go back and see if he was still there. He wasn't. Did they make any enquiries since the man was very distinctive and human? No. Did Haisell? No, apparently.

Then, after more stress, we have Gerry finding himself at Niagra Falls. No idea how he got there. A strange account of two odd men. But Gerry phoned his wife to tell her then found himself back in his home town with no explanation. But, there was proof of the Niagra Falls visit. Susan wanted to check that he really had been in Niagra Falls (!) so checked the phone bill and there was the call listed from Niagra Falls to their home. Well, we have her word since Haisell mentions this but not that he saw the phone bill but accepts this.

Gerry and Susan were either having a good laugh, pulling in the actual UFO reports to make it all gel or were both suffering psychological problems. I still cannot work out which. But Haisell, I mean, Haisell almost stunned me with the actual amateurish way he went about this 'investigation'. If Gerry said a pink gnome had waved through the window at him I seriously think Haisell might have believed him. I was just stunned.

But, worse was to come. Haisell discusses hypnosis with Gerry (in the late1970s) while also discussing UFO abduction cases. This with a percipient who had already read a great deal on the subject but it compounds things. You no longer have a credible percipient to place under hypnosis despite what Haisell claims. Eventually, Haisell convinces Gerry to take part in a pendulum test. Basically, the person relaxes and holds up a pendulum which subconsciously moves to indicate "Yes"/"No"/"I don't know"/"I don't want to talk about it". If you are now saying "W T F ??" then you know what I was thinking.

Firstly, the pendulum was wrong weight so they swapped it for another -meaning Gerry had to use his "relaxation techniques" twice in one session. "Leading questions" is a good description of what was asked, Haisell then notes he should have asked or rephrased the odd question. Gerry then, after the session, states he could not even remember the questions asked. Haisell then says that he realised that Gerry was in a "first state hypnotic" trance. Yes, Haisell was basically unaware of what he was doing and is not clinically trained for this and as Gerry is well read on psychiatry -revealed later- he could just as easily have been faking.

In 1978, even later now, Gerry agrees to be hypnotised but to be honest the questions asked are a bit odd. The light is a "symbol for something"....the entity is a "symbol for something" -Gerry has to look at them and see what.

Turns out that Gerry did not like one teacher, Mr Rice, who organised the hide-and-seek game the boy went missing during -he had slapped Gerry across the face a year before. Then I was reading and thinking "why has the story jumped to when he was found and being taken back to camp?" I then realised this was the "abduction" during which Gerry saw other kids in a craft while taken off planet (?).

Looking at the account of how he was found and taken back to camp and the "abduction" there are more than a few similarities.

Oh, aliens -or whatever- are kleptomaniacs. It seems. A female entity took an emerald cross on a chain that Gerry had stolen -as he admits- from his mother because it was wrong to worship or something -it's all confusing.

So what did the unnamed psychiatrist conclude? That Gerry had met non human entities and may have sent himself into another reality -the Niagra Falls incident being an example. However, he should learn to control this in time. Another "WTF???" moment. It seems that this psychiatrist had worked with a woman who had also been seen by psychiatrists in other countries, who believed that she could transport herself to other planets...or realms of reality. And why could no psychological condition be the cause?

Because Gerry said that he went missing for seven hours and that his cigarette was still lit after that period.

So, if I say I just got abducted and my proof is that the cup of water in front of me is still as full as it was five hours ago that is irrefutable proof. You do not need to track down witnesses nor even question the statement. It happened.

Haisell refers to events of a psychokinetic nature involving Gerry and Susan with other witnesses present. Now, I do not deny the existence of psychokinesis as I have seen some odd things in the last five decades. What made me even angrier is that Haisell does not once refer to speaking to any witnesses to any of these events and....sorry...I am at this moment levitating my PC monitor 60 cms into the air. Ron just saw it. There you go -"Haisell evidence".

However, there were hints of what was going on throughout the book. There was reference to Charles Fort (after which the nonsensical subject of "Forteanism" is titled -boys playing at scientific anarchy) but, okay, even if Fort produced some references that do not exist....and incidents that never took place. And talking of bad research -hey! Haisell is a fan of one of the best bad researchers, Jacques ("It's quoted in this book so that's fact, no need to check it") Vallee. Oh....and the worship of John Keel. I love Keel's books but I would never accept anything he wrote about without triple checking (and I have) -Keel was a journalist who realised early on how to spin a yarn and make money and I see him as a cosmic joker in his own right.

With people like these to look up to things were bound to go wrong.

When it came to asking what it was all about (the Armstrong case and UFOs), Haisell says we can only speculate but speculators must not attach their own bias....at that line I spat my coffee out. I realised I had spent good money on this. Interesting "UFO" reports from Canada -a CE IIIK from Forest Hill, Ontario isn't even given much space or even a year just "about 23 years ago"...but from his 1973 investigations back or from 1978 back? ***** awful.

"A UFO Revelation"...really? Where? Or is the "revelation" that idiots will pay good money for a book centered around a vague story about a school boy who disliked a teacher, went off on a hot Summer day to smoke and got heat-stroke and a sunburned neck, had to be carried back to camp by his friends?

A story "recalled" a decade later after seeing an odd light and in which he says he went missing for seven hours, a cigarette remained lit, not burnt down, over seven hours, during which time some small entities carried him to a bright light/craft and did something to his neck and he saw other kids?

George Adamski is looking bloody credible right about now.

Buy the book and decide yourself but remember you don't get the money back.

The Internet Is Losing Its Mind Over Alleged Sightings Of The Legendary Goatman!

Seriously, people, get a grip. Mountain Monsters and a lot of American TV shows have a great deal to answer for. There is a bit more at Uproxx.

Here's Ricci's piece:

This year-old video, which hails from the the Strange Mysteries Channel
on YouTube, details the history of the fabled Goatman. This hybrid
creature has peppered popular culture since 1957 when it was first
spotted in Maryland. I guess we could call this fella a cryptid, as he
is presumably half-human and half-goat, but the video’s lead-in photo
plays like a jokester who likes to hit the gym and enjoys fooling folks
with goat-themed cosplay.

Regardless, the creature known colloquially as “The Pope Lick Monster” has recently (and allegedly) been spotted throughout Wisconsin, Texas, and Kentucky.
That’s quite a stretch for a creature who would presumably be limited
in gait as “a horned man with the cloven hooves of an ungulate.” His
legends hold that he also possesses the strength to tear hikers apart
with ease. Perhaps Goatman also moves with the ungodly speed of Looney
Tunes’ Tasmanian Devil? Stranger things have happened.

These scattered sightings of the creature arrive not too long after the release of J. Nathan Couch’s book, Goatman: Flesh or Folklore?
Couch, a Wisconsin-based ghost hunter, dug into the decades-deep
history of the Goatman, who has frightened generations of teenagers who
would otherwise hang freely in the woods for rampant makeout sessions.
Well, maybe the Goatman did serve a purpose.

Still, what is this mysterious Goatman? He’s certainly not the guy
who dressed up as a goat and lived among his imagined brethren in the
Wasatch Mountains near Ogden, Utah. They found that dude in 2012, and
his story trekked all over the mainstream news.

Well, I have had to take a chance. I have searched the Magonia website and their list of books and I have trawled through every one of my books of folk-lore and so on. No "MacGregor" book from 1955.

The 1930 Tomintoul case seemed to have dead ends everywhere. I even searched through my huge stack of magazines and newsletters from the 1950s-1970. Nothing,

An internet search...nothing. But I was able to search a large internet archive reserved for researchers, or people with nothing better to do...only the 1937 The Peat -Fire Flame by Alasdair Alpin MacGregor, is listed and I already have a first edition copy of that.

There are a few books by A. A. MacGregor -none listed by Magonia. Only one was published in 1955 and that was The Ghost Book: Strange Hauntings in Britainby Alasdair Alpin MacGregor. Is this the reference to the report?

Well, it better be because I just purchased a copy from a contact -and I won't get my money back if it is not.

The whole point in citing references to a report is that it must be accessible to researchers to double check the details. As I have found IntCat lacking in accuracy in places I was NOT going to take what it read without double checking.

Ufologist on site after cite quotes this 1930 incident and 99% of them quote Jerome Clarks UFO Encyclopaedia. According to Jerome he was citing IntCat!! So he has asked me to up-date him when I find anything out. And I shall.

Look, it is simple. If you mention a case then the reference source is given. If that source is the same reference for the next report you simply write "ditto pp.----" (whatever the page numbers are. If the source is not used again until report 15 then (if it was the first reference source) you write "Ibid 1pp---" and the page numbers. It is that simple yet Rogerson and Magonia (who seem impossible to get hold of), critical of so many writers/researchers and sources do not abide by the first rule of research: always cite your reference".

This is why Ufology is never taken seriously. People like me have to come along and then correct sources and details.

It's been a bad day as I just read David Haisell's A Question Of Control and wait til you see my review on THAT!

Saturday, 28 November 2015

I'm hoping that some of the Ufologists who pop by might be able to help. Seriously, I'm not asking a lot!

This 1930 case is quoted over and over online and Rogerson's IntCat cites "MacGregor 1955, p.200" as the source but it does not give the source. It is not A. A. MacGregor’s Peat Fire Flame because I have a copy and that was published in 1937 and no such case exists within it.

Most are citing Jerome Clark's UFO Encyclopaedia (I'm guessing volume 1) and since volume 1 and volume 2 are both selling for between £150-335 ($325-500+) and I don't have that kind of cash to throw around, I wondered whether one of you lovely folk had a copy and could check Clark's source for me?

The details are:

1930 (approx date) - 2130 hrsTOMINTOUL (BANFFSHIRE : SCOTLAND)

Alexander Irvine and a friend were walking in
Smiddy Lane
when they saw a white light like a meteor. This light brightened and in it a
number of figures could be seen moving around. It was regarded locally as the
prevision of a nun’s death.

Note (TH): book published
1937 so contemporary not modern take on event.Awaiting copy of book.

Friday, 27 November 2015

Here we go again. People need to understand that scientists are always discovering things that create new noise out in space. Quasars, planets -there's a whole parcel of causes. So, while this sounds interesting, all other possible causes need to be ruled out first -it is a nightmare as the AOP Bureau's Signals From Space under Franklyn A. Davin-Wilson found out.

Oh, and then you have to ask if whoever sent the signals still exists as a civilisation now.

meh

Two Weird ‘Alien’ Radio Signals Are Detected From Outside Our Galaxy

Rob Waugh

Parkes

Astronomers
heard two mysterious radio signals from outside our galaxy -
unexplained blasts of radio energy which last a few milliseconds then
are never heard again.

Scientists using the Parkes radio
telescope in Australia heard two ‘Fast Radio Bursts’ this month -
separated by just 2.4 milliseconds, according to researchers at the Max
Planck Institute.

Radio telescopes have detected Fast Radio
Bursts since 2001 – incredibly short, high-energy pulses which last for a
few milliseconds and erupt with the energy the sun releases in a day.

But follow-up searches by non-radio telescopes have come up empty - leaving the source of the high-energy signals a mystery.

Astronomers
have previously speculated the signals could come from evaporating
black holes, or even from distant alien civilisations.

The new ‘double flash’ rules out some of the sources astronomers previously thought might cause Fast Radio Bursts.

For instance, the bursts could not be caused by neutron stars colliding - as they can collide only once.

Mysterious debris surrounding a star that scientists earlier this year
posited may be an alien megastructure is actually likely to be just
comets, according to NASA.

Damn! And here we were hoping. Anyway, if you are disappointed (you never really expected a huge craft of some type did you?). Here is the report by NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory:

A star called KIC 8462852 has been in the news recently for
unexplained and bizarre behavior. NASA's Kepler mission had monitored
the star for four years, observing two unusual incidents, in 2011 and
2013, when the star's light dimmed in dramatic, never-before-seen ways.
Something had passed in front of the star and blocked its light, but
what?

Scientists first reported the findings in September, suggesting a
family of comets as the most likely explanation. Other cited causes
included fragments of planets and asteroids.

A new study using data from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope addresses
the mystery, finding more evidence for the scenario involving a swarm of
comets. The study, led by Massimo Marengo of Iowa State University,
Ames, is accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal Letters.

One way to learn more about the star is to study it in infrared
light. Kepler had observed it in visible light. If a planetary impact,
or a collision amongst asteroids, were behind the mystery of KIC
8462852, then there should be an excess of infrared light around the
star. Dusty, ground-up bits of rock would be at the right temperature to
glow at infrared wavelengths.

At first, researchers tried to look for infrared light using NASA's
Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer, or WISE, and found none. But those
observations were taken in 2010, before the strange events seen by
Kepler -- and before any collisions would have kicked up dust.

To search for infrared light that might have been generated after the
oddball events, researchers turned to Spitzer, which, like WISE, also
detects infrared light. Spitzer just happened to observe KIC 8462852
more recently in 2015.

"Spitzer has observed all of the hundreds of thousands of stars where
Kepler hunted for planets, in the hope of finding infrared emission
from circumstellar dust," said Michael Werner, the Spitzer project
scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California,
and the lead investigator of that particular Spitzer/Kepler observing
program.

But, like WISE, Spitzer did not find any significant excess of
infrared light from warm dust. That makes theories of rocky smashups
very unlikely, and favors the idea that cold comets are responsible.
It's possible that a family of comets is traveling on a very long,
eccentric orbit around the star. At the head of the pack would be a very
large comet, which would have blocked the star's light in 2011, as
noted by Kepler. Later, in 2013, the rest of the comet family, a band of
varied fragments lagging behind, would have passed in front of the star
and again blocked its light.

By the time Spitzer observed the star in 2015, those comets would be
farther away, having continued on their long journey around the star.
They would not leave any infrared signatures that could be detected.
According to Marengo, more observations are needed to help settle the case of KIC 8462852.

"This is a very strange star," he said. "It reminds me of when we
first discovered pulsars. They were emitting odd signals nobody had ever
seen before, and the first one discovered was named LGM-1 after 'Little
Green Men.'"

In the end, the LGM-1 signals turned out to be a natural phenomenon.

"We may not know yet what's going on around this star," Marengo observed. "But that's what makes it so interesting."

Ames manages the Kepler and K2 missions for NASA's Science Mission
Directorate. JPL managed Kepler mission development. Ball Aerospace
& Technologies Corp. operates the flight system with support from
the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of
Colorado in Boulder.

JPL manages the Spitzer Space Telescope mission for NASA's Science
Mission Directorate, Washington. Science operations are conducted at the
Spitzer Science Center at the California Institute of Technology in
Pasadena. Spacecraft operations are based at Lockheed Martin Space
Systems Company, Littleton, Colorado. Data are archived at the Infrared
Science Archive housed at the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center at
Caltech.

Monday, 23 November 2015

It is quite true that, though I try as hard as I can, I just cannot suffer fools. I cannot abide so called "professionalism" where the alleged "professional" is incompetent at what he does.

Around 1976 I accompanied the late Graham F. N. Knewstub of the British Flying Saucer Bureau (BFSB) on an investigation. Graham was getting on a bit in years and suggested that I take over as head of Investigation and Research (I & R) but there was some opposition as I was an "H-dropper" and "not from quite the right background" for some members -an attitude toward me that, eventually, made Franklyn A. Davin-Wilson eventually resign from the BFSB Committee.

However, on the day in question I had gone with Graham to a place called Little Stoke. Two young women had been terrified by a very large, discoidal object late one evening and had been in such a panic that they began banging on the door of the family home to get in (they had been so scared they could not use the door key). So, Graham and I questioned both in a very relaxed manner on a nice sunny day.

As we all talked I made a line drawing of the family home, showing position of street light, tree and then a much larger sketch of the area. The girls were asked to point to where the object was seen and we were able to estimate size, etc., and realised the object was quite low -probably 50-60 feet (15-17 m).

I then set about drawing a rough map of the area including house, garden, tree and light positions and noting distances and so on. Once we had finished we drove off, stopping along the way to go over the report. Graham was, apparently, impressed at how I had made the line drawings, map and so on. "But that's how everyone does it -right?" It seems not. I was told that most investigators filled in a witnesse report form and might double check things -in a case like this investigators usually never bothered because, initially, it was classed as a Light-in-sky (usually a satellite or aircraft, etc.).

Graham told me "It's probably because you are a naturalist!"

I know what he means. You see, if a naturalist or zoologist goes to an area they will carry a local map. Often they will make a smaller, hand drawn version to fit into a pocket. Once at a site they will mark out reference points and usually estimate distances and sizes. They might also make sketches or line drawings for their notes. Even at that time this was just standard for me. It helped me vizualise in my mind what was where -and it made explaining to others easier.

Later Graham told me that he had swung the I & R job for me by showing this report and, surprisingly to me, the Committee had been "overwhelmed" by the detail.

However, as I was in contact with more and more groups I found that most lacked even the basics. Some vital evidence was lost in two cases for the simple reason that in one group no one knew how to get plaster of paris let alone how to make a cast of ground marks said to have been left by a UFO. The other group had gotten some plaster of paris but added too much water so after two hours left the scene. Had they sketched and measured the ground markings? "Well, roughly triangular....6 or 7 inches?" Later in the 1970s a vital piece of evidence was lost when a group made a plaster cast of a foot print said to have been made by an entity in a garden. Never even having practiced making plaster casts the mixture was too dry and the footprint "crumbled to pieces".

We never had digital cameras or phone cameras back then and, unbelievably, a camera (using film) was a luxury. Yet I had at least two "in case". So all the evidence was lost. I then produced a four page Field Investigators Guide and sent it to all of the UK groups I could find.

When I later helped set up UFO groups in Somerset, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and South wales everyone was given the Field Investigators Guide. Time and again I heard of problems that lost evidence or information that was useful and time and again when I pointed out this was all covered in the Guide I got a response of "Oh. Right. Didn't think of checking that"

There are Entity cases of High Strangeness, Missing Time cases, etc., in the UK, where I read "No investigation carried out" and then I get angry. Why not? It seems that the very unscientific approach used by some Ufologists (who want their subject to be accepted as a science!) is that "I don't believe that" or "Probably cranks" and so a case is filed away or lost.

There were two cases from the 1970s involving women who had both had lifelong "experiences" -this was well before Budd Hopkins and the "abduction explosion". One woman had so many correlations with abductions noted in the later literature -but hypnosis was NEVER used- that it still stands out today (I have no idea where either percipient is these days as they were very -VERY- badly treated by Ufologists. The first had been thrown from UFO group to UFO group and I still have one very well known veteran UK Ufologists letter telling me they "all know about her, we just don't bother"! The second woman was never insulted to her face but she knew what was going on behind her back and decided that she would only discuss what was going on with me.

The thing is, even if you suspect there might be a psychological reason for a claim, if someone comes to you with an account and asks for advice then, as a UFO investigator or researcher it is your duty to offer help or advice not just milk someone for information so you can write the next book or claim "Yeah, I've investigated UFO abductions" and throw it on your website. These are people and if this is all too much like work for you then go jump onto the paranormal or other latest trendy subject.

The same applies to investigating UFO landing sites. I have talked to one 'investigator' after another who would not go to an alleged landing site for these reasons:

1. "It's December -it's too cold!"

2. "It's been raining since the report so any signs have probably gone"

3. "Oh, it was so muddy I didn't want to get covered in the stuff!"

There is a report from NUFOIN of an investigator who, at his father's rural home, along with his family, observed a low level UFO that landed in a copse in a nearby valley -about three minutes walk away. The investigator, in his report, states how he was so scared that he did not want to go and investigate -his father went instead! Some ground traces but these were found hours later in daylight when the investigator felt "a little safer" -we have his word on these traces. No photoes,etc..

I have been at Cradle Hill, near Warminster and chased 'UFO' hoaxers -on two occasions between 20-30 people including UFO investigators, were calling me back and getting hysterical because I was "risking" my life!!

If you are going to investigate UFOs learn HOW to investigate. If the idea of approaching a possible landed UFO gives you the terrors -this is not the right field for you.

Thanks to Luis Gonzalez in Spain I have managed to up-date the Spanish section of the AE CE IIIK data base and, as I am an idiot, I have ordered so quite old books that may contain references to possible UK cases prior to 1950.

I do not really have the room for all the books and I've even been going through the 20-40 years old folder files to try to sort things out and that may entail box files.

But I do love reading books and the only books I buy tend to be for reference or research which, to me, is pleasure rather than a chore. After all, it has taken me 35-40 years to finally close some cases (the longest was the file I opened in 1977 and only closed (finally) in 2012).

And, yes, I have realised that such long term projects are things of the past as in 40 years I'd be 98!

The number of cases to be listed by Date, Time, Location and Possible Explannation (if any) from my own data base, I believe, will run to 2-3,000. However, before that, the actual report summaries need to be up-dated and replaced because even in plastic wallets inserted into arch files, you can imagine that 40 years sees a lot of wear and tear!

One thing I have discovered, quite by accident, going through UK reports from 1900-1990 as well as non-UK cases, is a type of entity that appears to have slipped past researchers. Initially I thought "Two cases -coincidence" but a third...a fourth and then a fifth? So in 2016 I'll present those cases in my book.

There is also another case, from 1978, in Devon, that has a very High Strangeness rating but, sadly, we will probably never get more details than those I will present in the book. Reading through the notes and then file last night really brought home how unique this case is but the local investigators simply messed everything up to a point that I recall telling the head of the group what I thought of their actions.

But this is all for next year. For now, I'm off to check on more reference sources.

Sunday, 22 November 2015

A team of scientists has unearthed the fossil
remnants of a tropical forest on the arctic island of Svalbard, and, according to them, it
could well help explain what is known to be one of the most dramatic climate shifts in Earth’s
history.

The fossil forest—stumps of lycopod trees that reached heights of
about 13 feet—dates back to the late Devonian period, or some 380 million
years ago. Today, Svalbard, is a frozen wasteland, but at that time was a huge area of
equatorial jungle. This is amongst some of the oldest forests ever
discovered and is eclipsed only by a mid-Devonian forest in Gilboa, New York.

The end of the Devonian was marked by a dramatic global cooling event
caused by a drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. One explanation
for the atmospheric shift is the rise of CO2-hungry forests, but to
date, very few Devonian trees have actually been found.

Firm evidence
for tropical forests at the end Devonian supports the theory that trees
had a big role to play in the climactic shift that would usher in an era
of complex terrestrial ecosystems.

“During the Devonian Period, it is widely believed that there was a
huge drop in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, from 15
times the present amount to something approaching current levels,” said
Cardiff University’s Chris Berry, lead author on a study appearing this
week in Geology.

“The evolution of tree-sized vegetation is the most likely
cause of this dramatic drop in carbon dioxide because the plants were
absorbing carbon dioxide through photosynthesis to build their tissues,
and also through the process of forming soils,” he continued.

Ultimately, Devonian trees probably set the stage of land-based life
as we know it.

The question, though, how long before we stumble upon fossil remains of hitherto unknown species of fauna? It's funny to think that when I read those magazine articles and books as a youngster that told how arctic and other "desolate" locations might once have been teeming with vegetation and life, those "in the know" used to mock the theories.